Re: Re: Re: Werewolves

From: Mikko Rintasaari <mikrin_at_...>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:50:11 +0200 (EET)


On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Jonas Schi�tt wrote:

> Mikko:
>
> >The wording of this in Elder Secrets is far from clear. To me it seems
> >to read that Enchanted Iron only get's the 1,5 x AP, and the other
> >effects are only valid for nonenchanted iron.
>
> Secrets Book p.33:
> "Some enchanted rune metal weapons work against magical creatures, and
> thus would harm physical things which are immune to normal metals
> (werecreatures, for instance). Silver, bronze, and iron do this."
>
> On p.34, it is stated that unenchanted iron is _also_ (not exclusively)
> good for this purpose. Equally clear is the statement that both types of
> iron get the 1.5 x AP.

Wait a minute here. On this I have to disagree. Unenchanted iron definitely does not get 1,5 x AP.

Secrets book p34:

"When enchanted, iron weapons are tempered to steel. They have half again the armorpoints of bronze..."
  Unenchanted iron has the same physical qualities as bronze. However, it also effects magic...
  Certain elder races are vulnerable to iron [note that this comes when discussing unenchanted iron, and the above defined term steel is not used].
  Unenchanted iron is also good against creatures immune to normal weapons, but subject to magical weapons, such as werewolves."

Now, let's take put occam's razor to work. The most coherent way to read the above would seem to be that the irons ability to hurt trolls, werewolves and elves, and magic disruptin ability is linked.

Unenchanted iron is antimagical in a way that hurts certain kinds of creatures. When we enchant the iron into steel, we get a durable but magically neutral metal, that loses the strange abilities of iron.

> The elf- and troll-slaying capabilities are given
> to "iron", no qualifiers, which to me implies that enchantment or not is
> irrelevant.

The word steel had been introduced to separate enchanted and unenchanted iron.

Observe that in the description of Iron on p34. the werewolves are spesifically said to be vulnerable to unenchanted iron, and I believe the same was rather obviously meant about elves and trolls.

> >People writing scenarios in the RQ-3 era always seemed to read it rather
> >sloppily, though.
>
> It was written rather sloppily, and you're compounding the problem by
> reading it too narrowly.

I still think I'm reading the above as it has been written. I really hated the way people just assumed that Enchanted Iron was the ansver to all troubles. You either get troll poison (that hurts your magic), or you get a very durable weapon. Not both.

> The intent is clearly that iron is still iron, even if it is also steel.
> The only effect of enchanting iron seems to be removal of the anti-magic.

I think you are wrong with this. There are direct quoutes above that prove this wrong.

> Of course, HW is different in that the word "steel" has been stricken
> from the vocabulary (because of the possible confusion, I assume) and the
> general +2 rank is only given if it is enchanted. The +2 vs elves and
> trolls could be read as applying equally to non-enchanted iron, but there
> is no hint that such iron would harm weres and so forth.

HW simplified things a lot. I'm not going to, because I like the added detail, and I want to keep my campaign consistent.

> The anti-magic capabilities are nowhere to be found, and would be hard to
> translate since in RQ it's dependant on how many ENC of iron you have on
> you and HW isn't concerned with such details. I guess you could have an
> anti-magic amulet or something that would act as a combined ability and
> flaw, but it would cost you HP or words in your narrative like everything
> else.

Too bad really. It's a nice effect. Though I have built on the RQ description a bit. So that cold iron weapons halve the effect of defensive magic they are attempting to pass.

        -Adept

Powered by hypermail